Fan base identified

-----------------------
The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info
-----------------------

Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 09:23 am

Some Marxist site reports:

The Dixie Chicks were right. They felt their fan base would not desert them; and, they haven’t.
In fact, the trio appeared on the cover of the May 29, 2006 issue of Time Magazine.

Too bad their Time fan base doesn’t buy concert tickets.

Posted by Tim B. on 08/30/2006 at 01:38 PM

I’m looking forward to the same site claiming that Dubya’s appeal is as strong as ever since he too has appeared on Time covers.
Posted by PW on 2006 08 30 at 01:59 PM • permalink

They wouldn’t sell any more tickets but they’d be on more magazine covers if they called themselves the Marxie Sheiks. Be more accurate, although an oxymoron. But they are not strangers to stupidity.
Posted by stats on 2006 08 30 at 02:00 PM • permalink

the Dixie Chicks (an unfortunate name for a great country group)
This guy obviously knows nothing about country music.
Posted by tim maguire on 2006 08 30 at 02:45 PM • permalink

Marxist thought being an oxymoron, it’s no wonder those buffoons think the Dixie Chicks are country. Then again they probably think an oxymoron is a really stupid animal that pulls plows for us capital exploiters.
Posted by Gary from Jersey on 2006 08 30 at 03:07 PM • permalink

Their appearance on Time’s cover says more about Time magazine then it does about Dixie Chick “fans”.
The real story is about the comrades at Time doing their best to give the chicks some “well earned” visibility.
Posted by Dorian on 2006 08 30 at 03:09 PM • permalink

Being on the cover of Time is not the honor it used to be. When Time actually was a news magazine, with genuine analysis, real insight, and actual news, yep, that was an honor.
These days, being on the cover of Time is not much different than being on the cover of People, or maybe Cosmopolitan.
In a couple years, it’ll be like having an interview in Playboy……everyone will buy the issue for the *cough* article *cough*.
and not a trumped up version of People Magazine,
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 08 30 at 03:25 PM • permalink

Sorry—should have deleted the last line. I do think Time is merely a trumped up version of People, the primary difference being that Time has a world wide perspective, and People tends to be US focused.
How the mighty have fallen……and they don’t even know it.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 08 30 at 03:26 PM • permalink

Why this constant talk of Cindy Sheehan’s daughters?
These ‘ladies’ made their bed, now let them lay in it.
And you can take that anyway, you choose.
Posted by El Cid on 2006 08 30 at 03:34 PM • permalink

I know what kind of fans they are. I’ve encountered them before. Once, several years back, a friend of mine had gone to Tampa to see a certain band. (At that time time in my life a trip from Miami to Tampa, a distance of around 280 miles, was a Big Trip.) Anyway, we were in a record store pawing through the imported vinyl (I told you this was several years ago) and talking with some native Tampanians, or whatever they are. “Oh!” gushed the female. ” I love (name of band)!” Were they going to the concert? we asked. “Nah….” she said, “we have laundry to do…”
I call them FINO’s—“Fans In Name Only.”
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 08 30 at 04:56 PM • permalink

I am told that the Chicks are very popular with gay men. I am not interested in knowing more beyond that, but I will say “Friend of Natalie” could replace “Friend of Judy.”
Posted by SoberHT on 2006 08 30 at 05:26 PM • permalink

I remember Time’s cover once featured a still from Eyes Wide Shut the same week the movie came out. Ostensibly, because the subject matter of the film was timely and newsworthy.
Not stated anywhere in the magazine was the fact that Eyes Wide Shut happened to be distributed by … Time Warner. The film’s subsequent sinking proved there was nothing newsworthy about it.
Anyone know if the Dixie Chicks have a similar arrangement with the publisher of this “news” weekly?
Posted by Rittenhouse on 2006 08 30 at 05:45 PM • permalink

#6 Being on the cover of Time is not the honor it used to be.
I agree completely with that statement. Actually, Time isn’t even as interesting as People Magazine. After thirty years of faithful reading, I finally gave up on it, because besides the ever more obvious lefty slant, it has more ads than articles. If the Dixie Chicks think they’re getting juice out of Time, they’re deluded… again.
Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 08 30 at 05:58 PM • permalink

The Chicks will continue to be basted as long as there are people who equate anti-war with pro-surrender.
Posted by blogstrop on 2006 08 30 at 06:29 PM • permalink

So at risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, we can assume the Chicks have a similar fan base to Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin? Or just as many fans?
Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2006 08 30 at 07:19 PM • permalink

All their base are not belong to them.
Posted by Mitch on 2006 08 30 at 07:59 PM • permalink

Time magazine readers do buy concert tickets. Unfortunately those concerts are generally overpriced Rolling Stone tours and nostalgic arena spectaculars, not Dixie Chick gigs.
Posted by blandwagon on 2006 08 30 at 08:21 PM • permalink

“The Dixie Chicks were right.”
The implication being, they were not only right about their fan base deserting them (um, actually, it did), but they were right about their political ideas as well. Well, I suppose given their history of spectacularly failed ideas, Marxists need to take what they can get.
Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 08 30 at 08:23 PM • permalink

Andrea,
Tampanians? I thought people from Tampa were Tampons.
I saw Molly Hatchet at the Gusman (Olympia) in downtown Miami. If that wasn’t enough of an assault on the eardrums, given how small the venue is, they were joined onstage by the Motor City Madman (Ted Nugent) and Dickie Betts.
Good times, good times. Well, they would be if I could remember them clearly.
Posted by joe bagadonuts on 2006 08 30 at 08:26 PM • permalink

Why would a Marxist buy a ticket to any show let alone the Dixies?
Isn’t all property theft?
Posted by WeekByWeek on 2006 08 30 at 08:27 PM • permalink

Somebody go to the Time Warner offices and find me ONE copy of a Dixie Chicks CD with the shrinkwrap peeled off.
Just curious.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 08 30 at 09:15 PM • permalink

Great research and fact verification as well- he states On the other hand, Mick Jagger, lead singer for the Rolling Stones, not known for being anything more than an ageless angry iconoclastic, raucous, sexual angst icon in his rock and roll songs, delivered a sharp blow to the Bush administration in the Stones’ new CD, A Bigger Bang. The CD’s songs were traditional Stones with lots of their usual sexual references and seemingly mindless anger. But, one song will challenge their fan base. It is called: “SWEETNEOCON.” The song is written by Jagger and Keith Richards… not only didn’t Keef write it, he refuses to play on it and thinks Jagger is a posturing twat for making political statements when he knows nothing about the issues.
Never let facts get in the road of a good load of bollocks though- he’s got a big future at Reuters.
Posted by Habib on 2006 08 30 at 09:36 PM • permalink

Jagger a posturing twat? He is his own special subject.
Posted by blogstrop on 2006 08 30 at 11:44 PM • permalink

They felt their fan base would not desert them; and, they haven’t.
Boy Howdy, unlike that website and unlike everyone who works at Time Magazine, I actually wake up to country music every morning; I live in Texas, I’ve seen Natalie Maines’s house, and I know about a certain establishment called the Dixie Chicken (unfortunate name duh.)
Come to think of it I AM their fan base and I absolutely did desert them. So did my country music stations, which occasionally play one of their classic pre-“assclown era” songs, but never play anything they’ve created in the past five years.
Apparently all the people lining up to not buy tickets to their concerts deserted them, too.
Which is especially funny, because it was the Dixie Chicks their very selves who, being interviewed on TV some years ago, explained that contracts are written such that the studios make all the money from album sales, and the artists only make money from the concert tours.
Posted by Shaky Barnes on 2006 08 31 at 12:26 AM • permalink

The shit has hit the fan base.
Posted by slammer on 2006 08 31 at 01:09 AM • permalink

There was a big campaign to plug the Dixie Chicks and their “number one” album here in the UK. It didnt seem to matter much. What a bunch of muppets.
Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on 2006 08 31 at 06:04 AM • permalink

“Time isn’t even as interesting as People Magazine.’‘
That’s because it isn’t as honest. People is a fluff magazine which makes no pretense of being anything else; Time is a fluff magazine which pretends to be an organ of Serious Journalism.
Posted by Sonetka’s Mom on 2006 08 31 at 08:42 AM • permalink

Sony is the Surrender Chicks’ label; I don’t think they have any dealings with Time Warner. So Time Magazine really will go to any lengths to get America to lose the war.
Posted by SoberHT on 2006 08 31 at 08:54 AM • permalink

Time getting it wrong ever since making Hitler Man of the Year.
Posted by Wylie Wilde on 2006 08 31 at 11:12 AM • permalink

Today’s news is that the Ditsy Shits were shut out of the CMA music awards. No nominations at all. Gosh. I wonder why? (Of course, the music columnist writing about it was all aghast at this since (paraphrase) “one of the tracks on their new CD was the best song of the year.” Ha!
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 08 31 at 06:23 PM • permalink